The Supreme Court ruled that when a financial institution transfers non-performing loans (NPLs) to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), the financial institution, not the SPV, bears the responsibility of notifying borrowers about the transfer. This decision reinforces the importance of prior notice to borrowers, ensuring they are informed and can explore options for restructuring their loans. It clarifies the obligations of financial institutions in these transactions, protecting the rights of borrowers facing potential changes in their loan terms and creditors.
The Case of Assigned Debt: Who Is Responsible for Informing the Borrower?
This case revolves around a complaint for a sum of money filed by Allied Bank against TJR Industrial Corporation and its officers (private respondents) due to unpaid loan obligations. Allied Bank subsequently assigned its rights, title, and interest over the non-performing loans (NPLs), including the promissory notes in question, to Grandholdings Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. (petitioner), a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9182, also known as “The Special Purpose Vehicle Act of 2002”. The central legal issue is whether the SPV, as the assignee of the NPLs, is required to provide prior notice to the borrowers before the transfer of the loans can take effect.
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petitioner’s motion for substitution, arguing that the petitioner failed to prove compliance with the notice requirement under Section 12(a) of R.A. No. 9182. This provision mandates that borrowers must be notified before the transfer of NPLs to an SPV can take effect. The petitioner contended that it had substantially complied with the requirements by securing the approval of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) for the transfer and by sending a letter-notice to the private respondents informing them of the sale or transfer of the NPLs.
The Supreme Court (SC) disagreed with the CA’s decision, holding that the responsibility of providing prior notice to the borrowers rests with the financial institution (FI) that is transferring the NPLs, in this case, Allied Bank, and not the SPV. According to the Court, Section 12(a) of R.A. No. 9182 explicitly imposes the duty to inform borrowers about the transfer of NPLs on the financial institution concerned. The Court emphasized that this duty is a condition that the transferring financial institution must satisfy for the deed of assignment to fully produce legal effects. It is Allied Bank that carries the burden of proving that its borrowers have been acquainted with the terms of the deed of assignment, as well as the legal effect of the transfer of the NPLs.
The Court looked into whether Allied Bank provided prior notice to its borrowers about the transfer of the NPLs. The SC found that the existence of the certificate of eligibility in favor of Allied Bank supports an affirmative answer. A certificate of eligibility is issued to banks and non-bank financial institutions performing quasi-banking functions (NBQBs) by the appropriate regulatory authority having jurisdiction over their operations as to the eligibility of their NPLs. Before a bank or NBQB can transfer its NPAs to an SPV, it must file an application for eligibility of said NPAs in accordance with SPV Rule 12 of “The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Act of 2002.”
The SC gave weight to the procedure for the Transfer of Assets to the SPV:
SPV Rule 12- Notice and Manner of Transfer of Assets
x x x x
(b) Procedures on the Transfer of Assets to the SPV
An FI that intends to transfer its NPAs to an SPV shall file an application for eligibility of said NPAs, in the prescribed format, with the Appropriate Regulatory Authority having jurisdiction over its operations. Said application shall be filed for each transfer of asset/s.
The application by the FI for eligibility of its NPAs proposed to be transferred to an SPV shall be accompanied by a certification from the FI that:
The above certification from the transferring FI shall be signed by a senior officer with a rank of at least Senior Vice President or equivalent provided such officer is duly authorized by the FI’s board of directors; or the Country Head, in the case of foreign banks.
Items 3 and 4 above shall not apply if the NPL has become a ROPOA after June 30, 2002.
The application may also be accompanied by a certification from an independent auditor acceptable to the Commission in cases of financing companies and investment houses under [Rule 3(a)(3)] or from the Commission on Audit in the case of GFIs or GOCCs, that the assets to be sold or transferred are NPAs as defined under the Act.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the certificate of eligibility shall only be issued upon compliance with the requirements laid down in the IRR and in Memorandum No. M 2006-001, one of which is that the application must be accompanied by a certification signed by the duly authorized officer of the bank or the NBQB that: 1) the assets to be transferred are NPAs; 2) the proposed transfer is under a true sale; 3) prior notice has been given to the borrowers; and that 4) the borrowers were given 90 days to restructure the loan with the bank or NBQB. Therefore, the Court inferred that with the issuance of the certificate of eligibility, Allied Bank had complied with all the conditions, including the prior written notice requirement.
The SC clarified that while the substitution of parties on account of a transfer of interest is not mandatory under Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the discretionary nature of allowing the substitution or joinder by the transferee demands that the court’s determination must be well-within the sphere of law. In this case, the court found that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for substitution. In conclusion, the Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s resolutions, allowing Grandholdings Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. to be substituted as party-plaintiff.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was determining which party, the financial institution or the SPV, is responsible for providing prior notice to borrowers when non-performing loans are transferred. |
| What does SPV stand for? | SPV stands for Special Purpose Vehicle. It is a legal entity created to fulfill specific or temporary objectives, often used for asset securitization or risk management. |
| What is a non-performing loan (NPL)? | A non-performing loan (NPL) is a loan in which the borrower has not made scheduled payments for a specified period, usually 90 days, indicating a high risk of default. |
| What is a certificate of eligibility in the context of SPV Act? | A certificate of eligibility is a document issued by the BSP certifying that certain assets qualify as non-performing assets (NPAs) and are eligible for transfer to an SPV under the SPV Act of 2002. |
| Who is responsible for notifying the borrower when a non-performing loan is transferred to an SPV? | The Supreme Court clarified that the responsibility of providing prior notice to the borrower lies with the financial institution (Allied Bank), not the SPV (Grandholdings Investments). |
| What is the significance of the Certificate of Eligibility issued by the BSP? | The Certificate of Eligibility is significant because it confirms that the financial institution has complied with all the requirements, including providing prior notice to the borrowers, before transferring the NPLs to the SPV. |
| What is the implication of this ruling for borrowers? | This ruling ensures that borrowers are properly informed when their loans are transferred to an SPV, giving them the opportunity to restructure or renegotiate the loan terms. |
| What was the basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision? | The Court of Appeals initially denied the motion for substitution because the SPV did not provide evidence of compliance with the prior notice requirement to the borrowers, as mandated by R.A. No. 9182. |
| How did the Supreme Court differ in its interpretation of the notice requirement? | The Supreme Court interpreted that the responsibility to provide prior notice rests with the transferring financial institution, not the SPV, and that the Certificate of Eligibility implies that the financial institution has already complied with this requirement. |
This case clarifies the responsibilities of financial institutions and SPVs in the transfer of non-performing loans, emphasizing the protection of borrowers’ rights through proper notification. This decision reinforces the need for transparency and adherence to legal requirements in financial transactions, ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Grandholdings Investments (SPV-AMC), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 221271, June 19, 2019
Leave a Reply